<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16674" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Michael Scharf
<michael.scharf@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">On
Tue, 01 Jul 2008 at 09:22:06, Ted Faber wrote:<BR>> But for all the folks
who think there's some engineering reason to<BR>> substitute ECN for
receiver window: using ECN this way is foolish.<BR><BR>Agreed, ECN is no
reasonable solution for flow control.<BR><BR>But what would be the role of
rwnd if we indeed had one of these<BR>router-assisted congestion control
schemes that aim at providing more<BR>precise feedback than ECN? Or e. g.
re-ECN?<BR><FONT color=#888888><BR>Michael<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<DIV>you know what would happen? that also the routers would use the flow
control algorithm, exactly like the receiver already does!<BR
clear=all><BR>saverio</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>